Pensioner against feet on seats

[Jamesb1974]

I don't think we can class that one in the same ballpark as reading the link above, the girl has a medical condition that is "a rare neurological disorder similar to autism that can cause sudden outbursts of anger". That's a world away from the case of the Copper who lifted the scrote up in an arm-lock which is itself a world away from a vigilante pensioner

I disagree with the sentiment that they are 'worlds away'. There are some striking similarities.

Steve Hudson (the copper) lost his temper when he was spoken back to by a youth and used 'far more force than proportional or reasonable'. In his own words, "‘I was frustrated and a bit angry that he wouldn’t comply".

 

[Antman]

I disagree with the sentiment that they are 'worlds away'. There are some striking similarities.

Steve Hudson (the copper) lost his temper when he was spoken back to by a youth and used 'far more force than proportional or reasonable'. In his own words, "‘I was frustrated and a bit angry that he wouldn’t comply".

Steve Hudson was clearly in the wrong, I fail to see what that has to do with this thread though.

 

[Jamesb1974]

I wasn't going to post on this thread again, but what exactly are the police supposed to do if somebody refuses to comply? Shrug their shoulders and walk away? Well obviously not, they use reasonable force.

They use force that is reasonable for the circumstances Antman. Reasonable force could be a hand on the shoulder to guide someone away. It could be an armlock. It could be the use of incapacitant spray, a baton strike, drawing of a Taser or aiming of a Taser and illumination of the laser sight (red dot) on the subject. It could also be pulling the trigger of a lethal firearm and shooting someone dead. Any use of force has to be reasonable and proportionate for the circumstances. No two circumstances are the same, so what was reasonable for one isn't necessarily reasonable for the other.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Steve Hudson was clearly in the wrong, I fail to see what that has to do with this thread though.

Oh do come on. Read back through the posts. Another poster commented that any police officer would do the same, someone else said they'd lose their job for it and yet another person said they wouldn't. I was using a fact based example to show that the second person was correct. Sorry if it was beyond you.

 

[TheKnightWho]

It's been several years of slight increases; Q2 was also higher.

The general trend is also pretty constant:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...landandwales/2015-10-15#anti-social-behaviour

Have you read those figures? The trend is quite significantly downwards... Look at the base numbers at the bottom.

And this graph:

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wasn't going to post on this thread again, but what exactly are the police supposed to do if somebody refuses to comply? Shrug their shoulders and walk away? Well obviously not, they use reasonable force.

Do children become adults at 10?

 

[fowler9]

Apologies but every time I think of this incident I can't help thinking of Charlie Baileygates in Me, Myself and Irene trying to start a fight with that kid for slurping his milkshake.

For the record grown ups shouldn't be putting kids in armlocks for putting their feet on the seats. That isn't teaching them respect, it is being a nutter.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

In our increasingly dumbed down world has any TOC ever come up with a more detailed account of why you shouldn't put your feet on the seats ? Maybe a little poster extolling the affects of diseases that could be spread from contact with dog faeces that could end up on the seats from those inconsiderate enough to do so. With a little note that the very seat you are sitting on with your feet up may have been subject to such by the previous occupant of the seat opposite. Failing that maybe reconfigure all train seating to eliminate the problem altogether.

 

[Antman]

They use force that is reasonable for the circumstances Antman. Reasonable force could be a hand on the shoulder to guide someone away. It could be an armlock. It could be the use of incapacitant spray, a baton strike, drawing of a Taser or aiming of a Taser and illumination of the laser sight (red dot) on the subject. It could also be pulling the trigger of a lethal firearm and shooting someone dead. Any use of force has to be reasonable and proportionate for the circumstances. No two circumstances are the same, so what was reasonable for one isn't necessarily reasonable for the other.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Oh do come on. Read back through the posts. Another poster commented that any police officer would do the same, someone else said they'd lose their job for it and yet another person said they wouldn't. I was using a fact based example to show that the second person was correct. Sorry if it was beyond you.

What is beyond me? What are you wittering on about? Steve Hudson acted in a fit of temper and was therefore in the wrong, surely that is obvious?

 

[DarloRich]

What is beyond me? What are you wittering on about? Steve Hudson acted in a fit of temper and was therefore in the wrong, surely that is obvious?

unlike the chap here?

 

[TheKnightWho]

I have to say that the pontificating and whining from some of the posters here in the face of overwhelming evidence against their claims is hilarious.

 

[Jamesb1974]

What is beyond me? What are you wittering on about? Steve Hudson acted in a fit of temper and was therefore in the wrong, surely that is obvious?

Not wittering dear chap, just making a valid contribution. :roll:

And I have to say, with one comment you've just undone your whole argument.

 

[Harbornite]

What is beyond me? What are you wittering on about? Steve Hudson acted in a fit of temper and was therefore in the wrong, surely that is obvious?

You're the one that is wittering on this occasion. You admit that Steve Hudson acted in a fit of temper and was therefore in the wrong, but you can't seem to acknowledge the fact that old man on the train also acted in a fit of temper and was therefore also in the wrong because he overreacted and used unnecessary force against the 11 year old. Admittedly this 11 year old wasn't disabled but the point still stands: the old man should not have used force.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Oh do come on. Read back through the posts. Another poster commented that any police officer would do the same, someone else said they'd lose their job for it and yet another person said they wouldn't. I was using a fact based example to show that the second person was correct. Sorry if it was beyond you.

My point with the disabled girl was that a police officer who unreasonably bound a disabled child to her wheelchair was not dismissed for their behaviour. I'd also give an honourable mention to PC Delroy Smellie here.

I am surprised that the Bolton police officer was dismissed, although I would say that putting someone up in an armlock then picking them up and throwing them across the room by their shoulders is somewhat different to putting someone in a brief armlock. If he'd done the latter he'd probably still have a job.

 

[Deepgreen]

Given they've been consistently improving, I can only think you're living in fantasy land.

Don't let that stop the revenge fantasies though Just don't make up rubbish to try to justify it in the eyes of everyone else.

What are the "they" that you claim have been improving? What, also, do you mean by "revenge fantasies"? I don't know where you plucked that from as I made no mention of anything like it. Not something I entertain, nor have I made up rubbish as you put it - my experience tells me that standards are declining. Youths/children today are far less compliant with authority than when I was their age (yes, I know, and it was always sunny in the holidays, etc., etc.).

 

[Harbornite]

Youths/children today are far less compliant with authority than when I was their age (yes, I know, and it was always sunny in the holidays, etc., etc.).

Is that why youth crime and drug consumption are declining?

 

[southern442]

In my opinion the man behaved completely inappropriately and he should be dealt with accordingly. However the kids were acting up so they were kind of asking for it
perhaps a less severe punishment for the children would have been enough to teach them a lesson, getting them kicked off the train maybe?

 

[Antman]

Not wittering dear chap, just making a valid contribution. :roll:

And I have to say, with one comment you've just undone your whole argument.

I have no idea what you're on about but don't bother trying to explain, life really is too short :roll:

 

[TheKnightWho]

What are the "they" that you claim have been improving? What, also, do you mean by "revenge fantasies"? I don't know where you plucked that from as I made no mention of anything like it. Not something I entertain, nor have I made up rubbish as you put it - my experience tells me that standards are declining. Youths/children today are far less compliant with authority than when I was their age (yes, I know, and it was always sunny in the holidays, etc., etc.).

Your experience has given you the wrong impression - look at the stats above: declining year on year.

Every generation believes this, despite it rarely having any truth to it.

 

[Mintona]

I have no idea what you're on about but don't bother trying to explain, life really is too short :roll:

There it is

 

[cjmillsnun]

I wasn't going to post on this thread again, but what exactly are the police supposed to do if somebody refuses to comply? Shrug their shoulders and walk away? Well obviously not, they use reasonable force.

An armlock is not reasonable force for having feet on a seat.

 

[Harbornite]

If only there was a poll to see whos supports the man...

 

[transmanche]

But there is a significant minority who believe that they can do what they want- drink, smoke, swear, verbally abuse people- with impunity. Nobody can touch them or make them behave.

'Twas always thus. Things really haven't changed that much.

It's not like he smashed a fist in their face or whacked them with a cricket bat.

Oh, that's OK then! :roll:

He simply held them in an uncomfortable position to encourage them to be a bit more polite next time.

This wasn't some large well-built teenager threatening anyone with a weapon. This was a little boy being cheeky.

I really don't see the issue.

And that's the crux of the issue. If you think it's ok to hold down and twist the arm of people who you perceive as being less than polite, then you are the problem. In effect, you are the yobbish minority!

 

[al78]

And that's the crux of the issue. If you think it's ok to hold down and twist the arm of people who you perceive as being less than polite, then you are the problem. In effect, you are the yobbish minority!

Did he actually twist their arm and cause an injury, or are you exaggerating just to try to make a point (if you are exaggerating it just shows your point must be weak). I'd say you are the problem if you can't tell the difference between provocation and retaliation. Allow people to get away with wrongdoing without consequence and they gradually become entitled to it, at which point it is too late. Never mind, letting kids get away with wrongdoing as they feel like it may well generate a few more sociopaths in the future, and it is not like we've got enough of those in the UK. :roll:

(see, I can go off on a exaggerated rant as well :roll

 

[Deepgreen]

Your experience has given you the wrong impression - look at the stats above: declining year on year.

Every generation believes this, despite it rarely having any truth to it.

What "stats"? Do you mean actual crime (which may or may not be true - I'll happily take your word for it), or, as I do, general anti-social behaviour, selfishness, stupidity, etc., for which there are no "stats", but which my experience informs me is a growing issue.

 

[keith1879]

Did he actually twist their arm and cause an injury, or are you exaggerating just to try to make a point (if you are exaggerating it just shows your point must be weak). I'd say you are the problem if you can't tell the difference between provocation and retaliation. Allow people to get away with wrongdoing without consequence and they gradually become entitled to it, at which point it is too late. Never mind, letting kids get away with wrongdoing as they feel like it may well generate a few more sociopaths in the future, and it is not like we've got enough of those in the UK. :roll:

(see, I can go off on a exaggerated rant as well :roll

Having looked at the pictures in the link from post 3 in this thread then I have to say that it is quite clear that the child was taken to a point where he would have been in some pain - and that even an elderly man could have badly injured the child with very little extra force. I can't believe that anyone thinks this was a proportionate response - or one that would actually do any good.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What "stats"? Do you mean actual crime (which may or may not be true - I'll happily take your word for it), or, as I do, general anti-social behaviour, selfishness, stupidity, etc., for which there are no "stats", but which my experience informs me is a growing issue.

I support your view - as a regular (more or less daily) rail traveller since the 1960s I agree that general anti-social behaviour (such as putting feet on seats) just gets worse and worse but in general it doesn't affect me unless I choose to engage with it.

My experience of actual aggressive or dangerous behaviour is so limited as to be meaningless - and I can't think of any incidents since the early 1990s. I have never seen a physical assault like the one that started this thread.

 

[transmanche]

What "stats"? Do you mean actual crime (which may or may not be true - I'll happily take your word for it), or, as I do, general anti-social behaviour, selfishness, stupidity, etc., for which there are no "stats", but which my experience informs me is a growing issue.

Ah, the classic case of confirmation bias seen through the mist of rose-tinted spectacles.

 

[Deepgreen]

I support your view - as a regular (more or less daily) rail traveller since the 1960s I agree that general anti-social behaviour (such as putting feet on seats) just gets worse and worse but in general it doesn't affect me unless I choose to engage with it.

My experience of actual aggressive or dangerous behaviour is so limited as to be meaningless - and I can't think of any incidents since the early 1990s. I have never seen a physical assault like the one that started this thread.

I normally choose not to engage with the anti-social activities of others - life is too short to risk arrest, etc., but I have been involved in a couple of incidents in the last few years where those activities were forced upon me. Both ended with the protagonist coming off worse! I think the key is to respond, when pretty much forced to, such that they will think twice in future (and, no, they were certainly not children!).

 

[keith1879]

Ah, the classic case of confirmation bias seen through the mist of rose-tinted spectacles.

You've made me question the opinion that I just posted agreeing with Deepgreen. I still feel that I see more instances of low-level anti-social behaviour but maybe it's partly because there is an ever widening set of causes. One isue that has definitely improved is the noisy mobile phone user - I think most people have realised that you don't need to shout - but on the other hand the number of people who wander around with their eyes glued to their smartphones and causing minor bumps and delays for other pedestrians on platforms for example seems to increase all the time.

Rose-tinted spectacles? Maybe - maybe not.

 

[Deepgreen]

You've made me question the opinion that I just posted agreeing with Deepgreen. I still feel that I see more instances of low-level anti-social behaviour but maybe it's partly because there is an ever widening set of causes. One isue that has definitely improved is the noisy mobile phone user - I think most people have realised that you don't need to shout - but on the other hand the number of people who wander around with their eyes glued to their smartphones and causing minor bumps and delays for other pedestrians on platforms for example seems to increase all the time.

Rose-tinted spectacles? Maybe - maybe not.

Couldn't agree more with both of these!

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Your experience has given you the wrong impression - look at the stats above: declining year on year.

Every generation believes this, despite it rarely having any truth to it.

The stats are manipulated by whoever is in power to convince people things are better than they are. Supposed low level drug possession isn't recorded as a crime anymore. There are many people who no longer report minor damage to vehicles because it is cheaper to pay for repairs than to pay increased insurance premiums for a claim.
Young people stabbing each other to death doesn't seem to have decreased in London.
Statistics always depend on who compiles them and how you look at them.

 

[TheKnightWho]

What "stats"? Do you mean actual crime (which may or may not be true - I'll happily take your word for it), or, as I do, general anti-social behaviour, selfishness, stupidity, etc., for which there are no "stats", but which my experience informs me is a growing issue.

When the stats don't fit what you want to believe... just say they're wrong!

They're further up the thread, and show anti-social behaviour has been strongly declining amongst 10-15 year olds.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The stats are manipulated by whoever is in power to convince people things are better than they are. Supposed low level drug possession isn't recorded as a crime anymore. There are many people who no longer report minor damage to vehicles because it is cheaper to pay for repairs than to pay increased insurance premiums for a claim.
Young people stabbing each other to death doesn't seem to have decreased in London.
Statistics always depend on who compiles them and how you look at them.

You can't just say they're outright wrong. This is a classic case of just dismissing inconvenient evidence. Rather than saying "they must be wrong!" could you state how the methodology or collation or them is incorrect? They're freely available with the source further up the thread.

They're certainly a lot more reliable than any of our personal experiences, which inherently have a very limited view.